Movie stars are known more for their faces than their voices (especially today) and when you replace their faces with a cartoon character's face, you lose the movie star's value, because the audience can't tell who is doing the voice - and don't care. They just want to believe in the characters themselves.

2) Specialized acting ability.

Clear Diction: You have to be able to clearly understand what the actor is saying (unless he is purposely mumbling for some story or character reason)

For example, listen to Ranger Smith's line at the top. Esp. the second half "Maybe I can do something.. before the commissioner..."

Try to read that line yourself as fast as Don Messick does and still make it all sound so clear and perfectly inflected. It's not easy. Don was a real pro.

A wide range of inflection - and the ability to control it and tailor it to the meaning of the dialogue and character.

If you read everything in a flat monotone, you aren't adding anything to the character.

Vocal acting is even more important in cartoons than in live action, because cartoon visual acting is not as easily controlled as a live actor's visual acting.

A colorful unique and rich voice adds a lot of personality to an animated character, whether you have a huge or tiny budget. It's instant personality.

That coupled with a good design gets you half way there.

Bill and Joe may have made super cheap cartoons, but they had the good sense to use really unique and appealing character designs and combine them with distinct and super qualified voice talent. At least in the beginning.

59 comments:

The vocals for Fantastic Mr. Fox are mushy and indistinct - probably the fault of using screen actors rather than voice actors (I've found stage and radio performers better for this, since their careers are based around how well they can use their voice). I can hear every word that the Ranger is saying, that's not to say it's perfect, but it's definitely easier on the ears than the muted FMF clips, which I had to listen to a couple of times to get.

Well, in all honesty...the voices originate from totally different genres of the film medium. The voices sound different in many ways for a reason!!

I get your point as I dispise many of the voices used in animation today but you chose bad examples in my opinion.

They are totally unrelated and it seems like you are just looking for a way to bash the Fantastic Mr. Fox.

I adore you mr.K, I read your blogs daily (the ones I have access to) and I always respect your opinion even if I disagree.Nothing like a healthy discussion in my book so I would like to know why you chose this particular movie as an example.

Ah, now I get it. Modern productions use actors whose names and appearances have familiarities, rather than their voices, because they are screen actors. They're playing themselves in the role, which they are ill-suited to, since they aren't trained to be able to make an identifiable voice.

For example, one would recognise Yogi Bear's voice because he -has a character voice-, no matter who's doing the acting (if they're any good at it). George Clooney et al have very unidentifiable voices, since they're just regular people and not characters being played. Not very interesting in terms of voice.

But hey, what are we to do about it? A-List celebrities sell seats, even if they are (generally) terrible at voice acting.

True but I did instantly recognise George Clooney linking it to the Fantastic Mr. Fox in a second.That off course all depends on the knowledge about the film in advance.

Don't get me wrong, I hate this whole "trend" with screen actors being sellingpoints for animated movies these days but if, for example, you would have picked a tv cartoon of the modern times against yogi such as..to make it easy, lets say spongebob, the effect would have been terminated as they are still voiced by talented and professional voice actors.

There are older animated films out there, before the "celebrity craze" that have the same flat and indistinct sound. The creative team behind those films is largely responisble for those and just like today there were also bad choices made in the past.

ps: If you see any typos, blame my Belgian roots (yes, you may point and laugh if you wish)

did you mean recognize the voice actors? because i can definitely recognize george clooney and jason schwartzman in the new clips. the mr fox movie is comprised of many wes anderson regulars. but the voices aren't anywhere as distinct from each other as the yogi clips, i recognize the characters ranger smith, yogi and booboo of course but i don't know their voice actors really.

i agree with you on the point that current animation too often goes for the big name stars instead of really judging their voices for a part. i actually think recognizing the voice of an actor you're very familiar with takes away from the character, like if i see mr. fox i'll probably always be aware its george clooney talking. but im not familiar with the people who voiced yogi and etc, and to me thats just yogi talking. i wish hollywood would consider this more.

i havent commented in a while, but im always reading, love the blog john!

Zwoltopia: If you say "the voices sound different in many ways for a reason." Would you care to say what that reason is?

When the trailer for Mr. Fox came out, someone was playing it where I could hear it but couldn't see it and I would have assumed it was another Dreamworks movie just based on the sound. Looking at it, I can see the Wes Anderson impact, (which you can either love or hate) but the sound seems pretty generic to what they do in animated movies these days.

I don't think animated movies should follow the example of Fantastic Mr. Fox. I haven't seen the movie yet but I can say I generally agree with your points and the Wes Anderson's choices are not the kind of thing that should be used in a cartoon.

However I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy the movie cause I've liked most of Wes Anderson's films to date. Voices and character design may be generic in therms of lack of expressiveness in the faces and distinct tones. But to me both the designs and the voices are not generic in comparison to what other films use today. The character voices may sound boring but this uninteligible gives a feeling of this kind of independent movies. And the character design seems out of date and it's different to what other people use. So even though it's not my ideal I kinda appreciate the quirkiness of it. In other words, at leas it's different.

To me a Dreamworks/Bluesky movie would be a better example of generic.

Anyway I also hate the celebrity trend, I just think that in this case it's simply the fact that Wes Anderson likes to work with the same cast he uses in life action movies. Most of the other times they just pick celebrities to sell the movie, even though it would work better without them.

Billy Bletcher (from Bowery Bugs--"Aaaw, but swamii!!")and Ralph have great cartoon voices. Ralph sounds like the blue incarnation of Katnip from the Irv Spector penned No Ifs, Ands or Butts Noveltoon, (a Buzzy Buzzard with some great backgrounds methinks you may like, Johnney- moderne without wonk).........

On Thanksgiving cartoon network aired Bugs Bunny's Thanksgiving Diet which was from the late 70's. It had older shorts in it but it also had crude animation that must have been done in the 70's as a wraparound with Bugs to tie everything together. One thing I noticed is that Bugs sounded different in these segments even though Mel Blanc still did his voice. He didn't sound as good as he did in the older shorts. I wonder if this was because of him being much older or if he tried to do something different with Bug's voice.

Dexter's Lab is pretty old now but Dexter had one of the most distinctive and genuinely funniest voices ever.

I've been checking out a bit of The Misadventures of Flapjack lately since people seem to rave about it, and the voices are at least cartoony but not particularly unique.

Has anybody else seen any other more recent cartoons (Chowder is another I've heard people talking about, but I haven't bothered to watch any of it yet) to comment on what the voices are like in those?

Producers cast "famous actors" for security and publicity. They feel safer spending millions of dollars with names like George Clooney and Jason Schwartzman than with, say, Billy West. Producers also know they can book movie stars on talk shows and get articles about them in newspapers and magazines and have them promote the cartoons for "free." I'm sure they also think it's more fun to hang around at the premiere parties with Robin Williams or Ray Romano then it would be with unknown (but talented) actors.

John, as usual I respect and admire your work in many ways. Would you care to throw some Voice Acting tips?

I know it's something you are 'born' with, but it would be VERY helpful to have some insight from a pro. BTW, being a creator + voice actor = more and more respect.

Back to "what we see nowadays" I'd like to point out Seth McFarlane and SOME of the Family Guy cast. I understand your point about the animation being crappy and the fact that it should be a sitcom with actual people instead, but the range on McFarlane's voice and his acting is pretty much flawless.

I dare to say that if it wasn't for the voices and acting Family Guy and American Dad! wouldn't be such a hit. Just compare Brian (McFarlane's actual voice) with Quagmire, Peter, Stewie (FG), Stan and Roger (AD). The guy even had singing lessons -or so I've read- with this old lady who taught Sinatra!

Its method acting thats to blame. They want it to sound "natural". And all the big named actors that they use to sell the films, are trained that way. Its almost like the producers make the characters out to be the actor's alter- egos. So we're not going to see an animated character with any autonomy, its just an imitation Hollywood actor, as if that's not redundant.

I'd love to see Charlie Kaufman write a script with George Clooney and Meryl Streep as a couple of furries.Maybe you're suggesting something like that already.

So true. I can't even understand everything they're saying in those clips. I saw the film last night with the kids, and I had no idea Mrs. Fox was Meryl Streep until the closing credits. As much as I admire her in films, she brought nothing here.

This film is not just a case of "studio executives boost box office with name star power." It's also a case of "directors (or stars) in one medium think they know everything about another medium," discounting the skill and talent of people who are dedicated to it.

You just don't get it, do you? You're being dragged into the future kicking and screaming aren't you, you poor sod.

We kids today can't identify with talent... we've never seen it. Besides, I will only watch movies where the animal characters act and sound like REAL PEOPLE!!! So what if you can't understand them, I want to believe that these animals are upright and talking!

Plus, I'm not going to go to a movie unless I know Hollywood spent a fortune getting all the current 'it' people to do the voices, and how am I supposed to know that George Clooney did the voice if he doesn't sound every bit as lifeless, drab and monotone as he does in those awful Ocean's movies?

Mel was in a car accident in the late 50s and it was so bad that the studio actually tried looking for new people to do the voice, including Stan Freberg.

When he came to, they began recording him from his hospital bed, and ever since then he took on easier jobs and tended to avoid voices like Yosemite Sam in favor of Barney Rubble and ( shudder ) Heathcliffe.

The touching part of the story is that the doctor got him out of his comma by addressing Mel as Bugs and asking if Bugs could hear him. When that worked, he continued to the other characters til he finally got Mel.

But even when Mel was old and fragile he still gave a superior performance to even the best voice artists today.

John K, I would like to know what you think about a cartoon online project that would make so many fans (audience) that would leverage the authors to sell character's based products and even going to television? And Haven't you so many great characters that would make this cartoon project possible? ( I am clearly thinking in a Spumco project direcetd by you).What the flaws (the budget)? The detours to make it possible (limited animation, flash, recycled motions)? I have an ongoing project myself in my country and it's beginning to show me the ways, So I imagine what you with all your creativity and know-how could do using the internet public as a big leverage to do all the great stuff you want to do.

Thank you, John K! I'm too young to be an old fogey, but I really dislike nearly all -- make that: all -- current Hollywood actors because I can't understand what the heck they're saying!

The clips you posted are a perfect illustration of it. I hardly understood a word they said, and, honestly, didn't care what they said, because they just sound like some teenaged slouch. Okay, I'll stop ranting now.

I remember reading about Mel being in that car accident and the doctor talking him out of it as bugs but had completely forgotten about it when I posted. Thanks for reminding me! And your right even when Mel wasn't at his best, he was still better then most.

I think John DiMaggio is a great modern voice actor. His voice is distinctive and he actually speaks quite clearly. I believe he played not only Bender on Futurama, but also the Scotsman on Samurai Jack and El Oso on El Tigre.

Uuuuugh, bland, boring voices are not great (unless it's supposed to be that way for a certain character). I hate it when people just pick up any old actor (not even thinking about the VOICE) and use it for a character.

Thank you, THANK YOU! I am so tired of all cartoon characters having the voices of my Jewish relatives! (Actually, some of my relative's voices may have been MORE interesting)

Anyway, cartoon voices suck these days- especially the voices in CGI movies. They think if they have characters sound like Billy Crystal it will sell more tickets to the adults taking thier kids to the movies. Whatever happened to dropping the little buggers off and DOING something adult instead? Go get your shoes resoled, or shop for discount mulch at the hardware store. I suppose parents think if they drop their kids off they will be molested and end up on Fox News...

Seriously, this has bothered me for a long time! Burn Hollywood, Burn!

John, another advantage the HB and Jay Ward people had was they were in a studio playing off each other. That brightens your read, at least it does for me.

Both Daws and Don M. were masters of giving an expressive, energetic read while going fairly slowly. Take a transcript of their dialogue and read it for yourself. I'll bet you'll find your pace is an awful lot faster than what guys like Daws were doing. The key is to slow down the read without sounding too choppy, sleepy or like you're reading. It takes a bit of training, which people got in the old days in radio.

Sorry, I have to disagree. I think the voices in FANTASTIC MR. FOX are just great. I hope you'll see the film before you denounce the voices as not be "cartoon" enough. This is not a WB or H&B film; it's a wholly different genre, and it works wonderfully.

I also could identify all of the voices (including Jason Schwartzman's) from your clips. The clips were well chosen - and short enough - to make them sound bad. See the film. It may not be your style, but it sure is mine.

Actually, Wes Anderson did a pretty unique thing with voice-recording for MR. FOX:

" With most animated films nowadays, the stars who supply the characters' voices do their recordings in glass studio booths and rarely meet any of the other "voices."

Anderson, however, gathered George Clooney, Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman, and installed them on a friend's farm in Connecticut. There they roamed the fields and hedgerows, running, jumping and even digging in the ground like the characters in Anderson's script, as a technician with a microphone followed them around. Scenes in a cider cellar were recorded in a basement and for those in a barn, they went into a barn."

I'll agree celebrity voices are over-used... something Disney started in the 1990's with their features that has been a selling point in every animated film since. I'll disagree that MR. FOX is a good example for your argument because deadpan dialogue is part of Wes Anderson's aesthetic. MR. FOX is something of a marvel because it consciously throws out many rules of animated films, particularly those with animal characters.

You'll never convince pompous twits who have a dismissive hatred for funny, character-driven gag cartoons. Don't even try, they're lost causes.

One poster on this thread recently wrote one of the most astoundingly ignorant replies I've ever read on an animation blog. This genius seems to think gags are things that drift down from heaven and don't need carefully worked-out set-ups, rhythm, pacing, composition, inner logic, etc.

Real cartoonists know better.

Of course professional voice artists - especially Golden Age greats who were trained in radio - will be more effective than film actors, who are used to also relying on visual gesture and facial expression to get their meaning across. It should be obvious to anyone who has ears.

If George Clooney was George Nobody instead of an internationally famous, A-list actor, does anyone in their right mind really believe some producer or director on the planet would pick his voice out of a pile of taped submissions and say: "Eureka! We've found the perfect Mr Fox!"

How naive! He was picked for (dubious) box office considerations, not for any creatively functional reason. Give me a break.

the whole trailer was like that, untintelligible, lifeless and indistinguishable voices. That's not unique to the fox movie and I didn't single it out. It's in every modern animated movie.

Planet 51 isn't any more "cartoony" than that or any other movie.It looks more professional, but is just more stock Cal Arts. The voices are no different to me.

But I'll be happy to use that next time I talk about voices.

Clarity and distinctiveness is not too much to ask for in an animated movie's voice acting (or design), whether it's "cartoony" or not.

I'm amazed that you of all people would stick up for something so wooden and lifeless when you have such a great site filled with beautiful Disney storyboards, designs, animation etc. The Fox movie is a 10th genereation imitation of "Robin Hood" through the eyes of fan art, and then live action folks imitating that fan art.

I get the feeling that some folks will stick up with lifelessness on the grounds that it is some kind of rebellion against professionalism or "cartoonines" as if cartooniness even still exists, let alone dominates the cartoon field.

Geez, Lady and the Tramp (one of the original inspirations of furry design) looks like a Clampett cartoon compared to this modern stuff.

I still love your site even though we sometimes disagree.

I agree with 90% of your taste and am about to show off your site again soon. You and John Canemaker are very generous in sharing so much great stuff with us fans.

Can you imagine if we could find so much great art and info about animation when we were kids?Your pal,

Now, I'd be the first to admit that she's incredibly beautiful and sexy - especially back in 1996. But let's be honest, she has a voice like shredded gravel. She sounds more like Louie Armstrong than Esmeralda.

Demi wasn't cast because her voice was ideal for the role, and neither were Clooney and Murray. Anyone who insists otherwise is kidding himself, and doesn't really understand much about modern Hollywood.

Geez, if Mel Blanc was here right now, he'd be shaking his head at the recent voice actors.

As soon as I heard the voices from Fantastic Fox, I almost strangled myself from boredom. Is that suppose to be a funny movie?

I like George Clooney but his voice acting in the movie sounds terrible. You can't tell what they're feeling or what's going on.

Mel Blanc is my favorite voice actor because he adds more color into our lovable characters. He could sound dramatic, exciting, cute, and hilarious. He knew what to do.

Of course I'm not asking every voice actor to be like Mel Blanc, because that's kinda impossible, but they should at least add more juice and personality in the characters, even if the characters are ugly-looking.

>>Demi wasn't cast because her voice was ideal for the role, and neither were Clooney and Murray. Anyone who insists otherwise is kidding himself, and doesn't really understand much about modern Hollywood.>>

Of course they always try to make cash and celebrity voices help but I don't consider Wes Anderson a typical Hollywood director. I just say that he would have probably picked the same actors if he were going to do a life-action movie. Of course here the main characters are animals so he couldn't use them in person. I think he just likes to work with some of these actors.

Well, he hasn't picked Clooney for a movie before, so I give you that, but Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson are in most of his films.

Also, I'm probably not the best one to talk about this since in Spain I've watched most of his movies dubbed, but I believe Bill Murray may be the scarce type of celebrity that could actually do good cartoon voices. I've seen the trailers of the Garfield's movies in english and Murray's voice seemed the only good thing in those films.

"The only rule I know of is to purposely go against what animation does better than every other medium. I wish someone would finally have the good sense to throw out that rule."

I guess I mean that MR. FOX is more in line with a sensibility in Russian stop-motion animation like Yuri Norenstein and his excellent HEDGEHOG IN THE FOG than with American animation. Though they dress like humans, the animals in these films revert to very animal-like behavior at times. I enjoyed it very much and found the voices to be appropriate to the characters and scenes. It is a welcome change from the seemingly endless digital, swirling plastic landscapes and boring anime both of which have been played out, at least for me. MR. FOX also had an absurdity and playfulness that has been missing in animated features for quite a while.

Trevor- I do not have a computer with internet access and a scanner right now. In the past I was borrowing someone else's. That's what I was doing when I had the Cartoon Critique site before. I ended up moving away from New Orleans because it is basically a war zone and left my borrowed setup with the person I was borrowing it from. Right now I finally have a computer and will hopefully have internet up and running on it soon. I know this amount of time to get those basic things sounds ridiculous to some people- but that's the way it's been. As soon as I'm all setup I hope to continue running the site.

John K., one of the things I like best about The Venture Bros. is how immediately distinct and recognizable all the main character's voices are (even if most of them are done by the same two guys). James Urbaniak stands out particularly as having a voice like a well-tuned instrument. It's funny, his main character is a slight variation on his own voice, so people who know him for the cartoons first and his movie roles second have often said watching him really speak looks as if he's being dubbed.

This is an incredibly late addition to the comments but I just wanted to throw Eric Idle into the mix. Now His voice in various Python features was funny enough, but I was struck down when I heard his voice acting for the 'Discworld' games (especially Discworld II). Video games are notorious for bad voice acting, and a cliche in general among modern animators, but that game set one hell of a standard in terms of an amalgam of cartoon and gaming.

The most important aspect of voice dubbing must be clear voice, diction and pronunciation. The second most important aspect is timing. Lip sync Dubbings needs to be performed with eyes & ears wide open, keeping in view of the fact the expressions and lip movement of the source. Cartoon dubbings needs lot of variation in voice and a single artist can perform dubbing for many characters. Since we are used to hear cartoon voices in broken, jarred voices so lot of modulation and stretch of voice is required. In this Mimicry Artistes like me have an advantage who can modulate, stretch, skew their voices at will, and can also perform dubbings for many characters. Good command over both source and target languages also gives you an advantage to get the real sense of the script.